Page 163 - GSTL_23rd July 2020_Vol 38_Part 4

2020 ] IN RE : H.P. SALES INDIA PVT. LTD. 529
supply of food to the patient in the hospital without the patient be-
ing provided the health care facilities. Once again, this is not the
case in the present facts of the appeal, as all the components of the
printers are equally important and none is more important than
others, thereby lending support to our observation that there is no
principal supply in the supplies under question.
64. Similarly, all other illustrations mentioned in the FAQ’s, GST Fliers,
and CBIC circulars, cited by the Appellant does not support the Appellant’s con-
tentions. Rather, the same is validating our observation to the extent that there is
no principal supply in the bundle of supplies under question.
65. In view of the above, it is concluded that though some of the sub-
missions remained to be considered, after adequate consideration of the same,
we reach the same conclusion as reached earlier in the appellate order, that the
supply of the EiectroInk along with other consumables by the Appellant is not a
composite supply. Instead the said supply can be construed as mixed supply, as
it satisfies all the conditions stipulated for the ‘mixed supply’ under the provi-
sion of Section 2(74) of the CGST Act. Section 2(74) is being reproduced herein-
under :
(74) ”Mixed Supply” means two or more individual supplies of goods or
services or any combination thereof, made in conjunction with each other
by a taxable person for a single price where such supply does not constitute
a composite supply.
Illustration : A supply of a package consisting of canned foods, sweets,
chocolates, cakes, dry fruits, aerated drinks and fruit juices when supplied
for a single price is a mixed supply. Each of these items can be supplied
separately and is not dependent on any other. It shall not be a mixed supply
if these items are supplied separately;
66. As is evident from the facts of the case, the supplies, made by the
Appellant, squarely satisfy all the conditions prescribed for the mixed supply.
Accordingly, it was rightly held by the AAR that the supply of the ElectroInk
along with the other consumables comprising of blanket, photo imaging plate,
binary ink developer, HP imaging oil, blanket web and other machinery prod-
ucts is ‘mixed supply’ and not the composite supply as being made out by the
Appellant.
67. Now, in view of the above analysis of the submissions and evidenc-
es put forth by the Appellant vide the additional submissions dated 11-2-2019, it
is conspicuous that additional submissions dated 11-2-2019, made by the Appel-
lant, do not have any significant bearing on the outcome of the case. The other
submissions made by the Appellant are inconsequential in the present case, as
even the vindication of all those submissions would not have any bearing on the
outcome of the instant appeal. Therefore, we have restricted our discussions to
the aspect of examining the principal supply among the bundle of supplies un-
der question.
68. Thus, in view of the above discussion, we, hereby, pass the follow-
ing order :
ORDER
69. We do not find any reason to amend our original order dated 17-2-
2019, wherein it was held that the supply of the Electroink along with the other
consumables comprising of blanket, photo imaging plate, binary ink developer,

GST LAW TIMES  23rd July 2020  163